This series has been developing three goals which if accomplished will do much to renew the church. We are skipping to goal three, “our form of government requires that higher governing bodies hold lower governing bodies accountable to the Gospel which is given expression in our confessions” because of the current situation in the church.
After Amendment A: Maintaining the Peace, Unity and Purity of the Church, and The Importance of Protecting and Defending the Constitution of the PC(USA)
On February 19, the Presbyterian Church (USA) once again affirmed—and by a significantly greater margin than before—God’s intent that sexual relationships be within the bonds of marriage between a man and a woman. Some in the church, however, did not rejoice. Some of them had already declared their unwillingness to live by this standard of the Presbyterian constitution. Refusal to obey the constitution, left uncorrected, will create a constitutional crisis that could threaten the continued existence of the Presbyterian Church (USA).
A unique characteristic of our reformed polity is that we are a self-governing people who take vows to adhere to a common set of beliefs. Unlike many other denominations, Presbyterians are self-governed and, therefore, we commit ourselves to live under the provisions of a written constitution. Our constitution provides for us not only a system of polity (government) but also our confession of faith. Our officers take vows to accept the authority of Scripture, to be instructed and led by our confessions, and to be governed by our church’s polity and abide by its discipline (G-14.0405).
We now have a body of legal and judicial precedents to carry out. The church made its historic “fidelity and chastity” ordination requirement explicit in the Book of Order, Part II of our church constitution, in 1997. The amendment was a direct result of an action by our highest church court, the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission (GA-PJC). Prior to 1997, the standard was implicit and church rulings called “Definitive Guidance” and “Authoritative Interpretation” held in check challenges to the standard. During the past thirty years, permanent judicial commissions have rendered decisions consistent with the legislative decisions of the church, so that we have a body of applicable court precedents.
It now appears that we need pastoral and administrative application of these decisions in cases where governing bodies find complying with the standard difficult.
Examples of challenges to the constitutional sexual standards in which the constitution was obeyed
Those in the church who wish to see the “fidelity and chastity” standard removed have for several years pressed the matter with attempts to ordain and install elders and ministers of Word and Sacrament who do not meet the standard. Two instances prior to 1997 worked their way through the disciplinary processes of the lower governing bodies and were finally decided by the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission (GA-PJC). The high court decisions effectively prevented two self-confessed lesbians from being installed as a minister of Word and Sacrament in one case, and from being certified ready to receive a call to the ministry of Word and Sacrament in the other.
Each of the cases began when members of presbyteries— elders and pastors—witnessed an unconstitutional decision and took corrective action consistent with the process provided in our Presbyterian constitution. Each case was resolved when the presbytery in question complied with the order of the court.
A self-governed people cannot ignore the need for discipline when it arises. Obviously, we have no denominational police force. The effectiveness of our constitutional form of government depends on the willingness of Presbyterians to honor the vows they have taken, on governing bodies to exercise their pastoral and administrative responsibilities under the constitution, and on the General Assembly’s Stated Clerk to exercise the powers of his office to preserve and defend the constitution. (Standing Rules of the General Assembly, G.2.e. p. 44.)
The website of the Presbyterian Coalition (www.Presbycoalition.org) carries public statements issued by a number of churches, mostly—but not exclusively—in the Synod of the Northeast, stating unwillingness to abide by G-6.0106b, the “fidelity and chastity” requirement for ordination. One, for example, says: “We have not, cannot, and will not abide by G-6.0106b.” (A more complete listing of churches unwilling to comply with G-6.0106b appears on the More Light Church Network website: http://www.mlp.org/newdissent.html.) These are ordaining bodies declaring that they will not abide by the constitution when they ordain officers.
The courts have decided the matter
One of these cases of refusal to abide by the constitution has already been dealt with in the courts of the church. Christ Presbyterian Church in Burlington, VT, issued to the Presbytery of Northern New England a statement of intent not to obey the “fidelity and chastity” provision of the Book of Order. Another session in the presbytery, fulfilling its obligation as a connected part of the body, sought remedial action from the church courts. The intent was to prompt the presbytery to discharge its responsibility and bring the Christ Church session into compliance with the constitution.
The case was appealed finally to the GA-PJC as Londonderry et al. v. Presbytery of Northern New England. The court found that the statement by Christ Church exceeded the limits of dissent and crossed over to defiance. Dissent is allowed; defiance is not. In July of 2000, the GA-PJC said that dissent “may not include an intent by those who have vowed to be governed by the church’s polity to violate the Constitution.” The court ordered the Presbytery of Northern New England to “exercise pastoral and administrative oversight of Christ Church…” and “…continue to work pastorally with the Session of Christ Church to assist it in fulfilling its obligation to comply with the Constitution.”
In response to this decision, the presbytery formed a committee that met with the session and read the decision. Christ Church shows no sign of compliance with the constitution. Today the statement that led to the court’s action has not been withdrawn and continues to be posted on their website. In more than eighteen months since the ruling, there is no evidence that the presbytery has taken any further action.
The presbytery appears to have taken the minimal first step required by the PJC, but it has not achieved the result directed by the court and required by the constitution.
The ruling in the Londonderry case set a court precedent that should be sufficient to prompt presbyteries to act in other cases of refusal to obey. But there has been no follow through in the Christ Church situation, and no effort to bring the other sessions into compliance either.
The Stated Clerk and the General Assembly both have duties to help the constitution to hold and to help the lower governing bodies accept and comply with decisions of the majority
The GA-PJC cannot carry out its own decisions. The governing bodies must do that. The wellbeing of the church is enhanced when pastoral and administration action is initiated in response to the court by the nearest responsible governing body.
In these cases of session refusal to obey, presbyteries are not responding, and both the peace and unity of the whole church are thereby at serious risk. But, though proper response is delayed, there is yet opportunity for a satisfactory resolution.
The General Assembly’s Stated Clerk is our chief constitutional officer. He is charged by the Standing Rules of the General Assembly (G.2.e) to “preserve and defend the constitution.” Especially when a matter of such debate has been determined by church law and upheld by the church court, the Clerk has both the power and the obligation to insist that the governing bodies and their officers comply. The Standing Rules require the Clerk to make a “full report to the next General Assembly” regarding any case that involves compliance with a GA PJC ruling. Although the Londonderry decision was rendered in July of 2000, inexplicably, the Clerk did not report to the next Assembly. He is expected to bring his “full report” to the upcoming General Assembly.
In response to the Clerk’s report, the Standing Rules provide that, “if the General Assembly deems such compliance inadequate, the assembly may make such further order or orders as it deems necessary to ensure compliance….”
Can the church long endure if the constitution is of no effect?
A letter to churches from the Presbyterian Coalition calls the “fidelity and chastity” paragraph one of the best-defended provisions of our constitution. Not only is this standard embedded in our confessional and scriptural heritage, it has been reaffirmed by major votes of the church three times in the past five years. We are beyond any doubt of the church’s will on this matter. The time has come to accept and comply.
Our constitution recognizes that major decisions are made to which not all will agree. It provides three acceptable alternatives for response in those cases:
[W]hen any matter is determined by a major vote, every member shall either actively concur with or passively submit to such determination; or if his conscience permit him to do neither, he shall, after sufficient liberty modestly to reason and remonstrate, peaceably withdraw from our communion without attempting to make any schism. Provided always that this shall be understood to extend only to such determination as the body shall judge indispensable in doctrine or Presbyterian government. (G-6.0108b)
Surely, this ordination standard, viewed from any angle, must now be regarded as “indispensable.”
Church governing bodies and church leaders must now aid the church in finding peace and maintaining unity on this matter. Obedience is essential to that, as is pastoral care. In every case of known refusal to obey the constitution on this matter, church officers in the presbytery should be seeking pastoral and administrative action from the presbytery based on the Londonderry precedent.
If church officers repudiate their vows but continue to serve, the constitution is threatened. If governing bodies allow defiance of the constitution, the constitution will no longer bind us. If we are no longer bound by the constitution, we are no longer the Presbyterian Church (USA).
The upcoming General Assembly carries an enormous burden to help the church end its strife over this matter. Both the Stated Clerk and commissioners have a critical role to play to avert a constitutional crisis if they begin their work with sessions still declaring their refusal to accept and obey the decision of the church on “fidelity and chastity.”
This article first appeared in Theology Matters, Vol. 8, No. 2 (Mar/Apr 2002).
